Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Improving Prenatal Diagnosis of Coarctation of the Aorta

Background

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association between fetal echocardiographic measurements and the need for intervention (primary coarctation repair, staged coarctation repair, or catheter intervention) in prenatally diagnosed coarctation of the aorta.

Hepatitis E: An Underdiagnosed,Emerging Infection in Nonendemic Regions

Although hepatitis E virus (HEV) is the primary cause of enterically transmitted acute hepatitis and jaundice in developing countries, locally acquired HEV infections are increasing in nonendemic countries. As such, HEV is emerging as an underdiagnosed cause of infection. This report describes three clinically variable cases of HEV infection with unusual clinical presentations. These cases highlight the fact that HEV should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients with unexplained hepatitis (acute or chronic) with or without extrahepatic manifestations. HEV should also be considered in patients with persistently elevated liver enzymes who have not travelled to known HEV-endemic regions. Lack of knowledge among physicians and an absence of standardized diagnostic tests may result in increased morbidity and mortality from HEV infection.     

Patients with Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia (GAVE) Are at a Higher Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Absence of Cirrhosis

Background and Aims: Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is commonly found in patients with cirrhosis, but it is also associated with other diseases in the absence of cirrhosis. Whether GAVE confers a different severity of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding between patients with and without cirrhosis remains unknown. We aim to examine whether there is a difference in clinically significant GI bleeding due to GAVE in patients with or without cirrhosis. Methods: This is a retrospective case-control study of patients who were diagnosed with GAVE between January 2000 and June 2014. Patients were categorized into cirrhosis and noncirrhosis groups, and those with an additional GI bleeding source were excluded. Univariate comparisons and multivariable models were constructed using logistic regression. Results: In total, 110 patients diagnosed with GAVE on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were included in our analysis; 84 patients had cirrhosis (76.4%) and 26 (23.6%) did not. Active GI bleeding was more prevalent in patients without cirrhosis (63.4% vs. 32.1%, p=0.003) despite similar indications for EGD, and endoscopic treatment with argon plasma coagulation (APC) was required more often in this group, approaching statistical significance (27% vs. 10.7%, p=0.056). There was no difference in bleeding severity, as evidenced by similar re-bleeding rates, surgery, or death attributed to uncontrolled bleeding. The strongest independent risk factor for GI bleeding was the absence of cirrhosis (odds ratio (OR): 5.151 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-24.48, p=0.039). Conclusions: Patients with GAVE in the absence of cirrhosis are at higher risk for active GI bleeding and require more frequent endoscopic treatment than similar patients with cirrhosis. It may be worthwhile to treat GAVE in this population even in the absence of active bleeding.